8. I heard that discussion this a.m. and wondered why no one

Brought up the fact that many women (especially those in lower paying jobs) are caught between the proverbial rock and hard place when it comes to working outside of the home. When they run the numbers on how much they will make and how much it will COST them to work, they find out it's just not worth it to get a "paying job". Between the cost of childcare, clothing and transportation, it just makes more sense to stay at home. So even if more income would theoretically help their situation (in a two parent home), it just doesn't work out mathematically.

All of that talk about "choosing" to stay home ignores some of the major factors that go into whether a woman works outside of the home or not. Her education and training, where she lives, the availability of decent paying jobs and whether she has a partner or spouse may be very important factors regarding the decision to have a paying job.....on top of whether it will actually cost her to go to work outside of the home. There are also personal values about this subject and some people truly believe that their job is staying home to raise the children---at least until they reach school age. If you have several children, that can span over a number of years of staying at home until the last one is old enough to go to school.

I find that Peggy Newnan is an arrogant snob and probably has no clue what it's like to be a person who works in lower paying jobs, but feels fully qualified to put in her two cents just the same. I cringe when she is on TV because she comes across as such an elite twit. I do not like watching her and often find myself talking back to the TV when she is on. Just wish she could hear what the viewers are saying to her. LOL Maybe that would remove that self satisfied grin off her face.

9. Well, that's bullshit.

10. Not sure what you mean...could you elaborate?

I mean, I think her stuff is bullshit. Always was. I was just trying to get to the hypocrisy which no one on MJ today even brought up. Someone (I was hoping Jonathan) needed to ask her my question. I emailed a copy of my OP to the show...

22. I did both myself and what stands out in my memory was that when I was at home with

my kids (when they were very young) it was hectic, esp. with demanding little babies and toddlers. But when they got into preschool I had more time to myself, which was great. It was great also to know that you are the boss of home. You can mop the kitchen floor on Monday or wait til Tuesday if you wanted. It was up to you. Whereas, at work you are at the whim of someone else, your boss, and if he holds the power to whether you can pay your mortgage and keep your house, you can have a miserable feeling.

11. It's only a sacrifice if Mom does not WANT to stay home, but a husband "makes" her stay there

or if her faith/culture loads her up with SO MANY children that she cannot afford the daycare vs job income divide

and if the husband later "trades her in for a newer model" and does not provide for her old age.

Women who take many years "off" to raise kids suffer when it comes time to retire because of the empty spots in their Social Security work record, and ones who are lucky enough to work in a field that still offers pensions, they are often "behind" in the vesting process.

If they have a long marriage to a very rich man, and they are included in the finances, they do well, but for the ones who have the rug pulled out from under them at 50-something, it's another story altogether.

12. I have a question about Social Security in the US.

Here in Canada, if you divorce and you've been a stay at home parent you get to split the amount that was put into the Canada Pension Plan with your ex for the amount of time you were together and not working, because the government has decided it's unfair that the spouse that's working has more put in to CPP for their retirement and the other spouse gets left with crap for staying at home, so they've leveled the field in the case of a divorce. Is there no such equalization in the case of a divorce for Social Security in the US?

13. There is some equalization for long marriages, but

a super rich guy who dumps a wife, does not get social security beyond the maximum paid. We stop collecting a a bit over 100K, so if the wife is not provided for well in the divorce and is not taken care of by his golden parachute, she's stuck with half of whatever he would get from SS..

14. This issue is a dog for Romney

The more they try to spin this as an "attack" on Mrs. Romney and and attack on "family values" the more it puts the Romneys' lavish, ultra-rich world into the public eye. It's hard for anyone to be a victim with $500,000,000.00 in the bank. Just talking about how she "raised" her children will carry with it a discussion that she had nannies and maids and chefs and tutors and all the rest. They'd be wise in the long run to let it go.

26. I'm not talking about us, I'm talking about them

I don't know that we need to talk about it at all. What I'm saying is there is a big downside for the rich guy to play the victim and the less they draw attention to their "world", whether it's car elevators or paltry $300K speaking fees or $10,000 casual bets or nannies and maids, the better for Mitt. There's just no way to push the issue about Mrs. Romney's "choices" as a mother without putting it in the context of the options that are available to her because she is ultra-rich.